Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Ukraine and the Crimea

The political situation in Ukraine is politically and
morally more complex than listening to the news media and politicians would
suggest.

Politically, Russia wants to protect important national
interests. The United States invaded both Grenada and Panama with less at stake
(alleged concern for the well-being of a small number of U.S. citizens, mostly
medical students, justified the invasion of Grenada to keep a pro-Marxist
popular regime from power; trying to reduce drug imports justified the invasion
of Panama) than Russia has at stake in the future of Crimea. Russia's concern
include the well-being of Russian citizens and Ukrainian citizens who are
ethnic Russians living in Crimea, the security of its major Black Sea Naval
port, and the uninterrupted flow, through pipelines that cross Ukraine, of
natural gas and oil exports. The United States arguing that Russia should not
act assertively to protect its perceived national interests appears
hypocritical, revealing that the U.S. perceives its national interests lie in
keeping Russia weak and surrounded by unfriendly powers.

For similar reasons, the U.S., NATO, and the European Union badly
miscalculated when they sought to incorporate former Eastern European nations
into western alliances after the fall of the iron curtain. Those actions are
akin to Russia or China seeking to incorporate Mexico and Canada into alliances
as a way of limiting U.S. influence. The U.S. would, to say the least, feel
threatened and respond aggressively, perhaps more aggressively than Russian has
in the Crimea.

Morally, people have a right to self-determination. How
granular is that right, i.e., at what level of disaggregation should people be
able to form an independent state? This is not an abstruse philosophical
question. Some communities in the United States would like to withdraw from the
union because they feel disenfranchised by the federal and/or state
governments; other communities in the United States want to secede because they
wish to form homogenous ethnic or religious enclaves.

On the other hand, disaggregation can make the world a more
dangerous place, result in the creation of a state that lacks the resources and
population base to provide essential public services for its people (let alone
defend its people and territory against aggression), and result in more rather
than less prejudice (think of the racial cleansing that apartheid South Africa
attempted).

Putin is not Hitler. Russia does not have plans for global
conquest – those died when Communism did. The West lacks the wherewithal to stop
Russia from annexing the Crimea without great loss of life – perhaps more loss
of life than the Crimean population. Whether one views the problem through the
lens of history, political realism, or ethics, the view is muddied.

The United States may object to Russia annexing the Crimea,
may protest that action, may take diplomatic action, and perhaps even impose
some sanctions, but the U.S. and its allies will do well to remember that in
the final analysis stopping Russia would carry far too high a price tag to
justify a war (for more on Just War Theory, cf. my book Forging
Swords into Plows). Bellicose language is therefore inappropriate and
unhelpful.